One of the critical distinctions Joseph Marshall III makes in The Day the World Ended at Little Bighorn: A Lakota History concerns how the whites and Lakotas differed in their understanding of possession of land. The former, owing to their Judeo-Christian background and the theories of philosophers like John Locke, held that possessing land and improving it made it yours, the sense of ownership.
To Lakota sensibilities this made no sense! No one could "own" what was provided for all. Tribes could control certain portions of territory, but this is not the same thing as exclusive ownership. If we look at the history of modern humankind, most conflicts are fought for ownership of land and sea.
The overall concept of private property is troublesome, to say the least. In this country, property rights advocates argue that each individual should have the right to do whatever he or she damn well wants to do with THEIR property. It doesn't matter what neighbors or the overall community desires; the freedom falls to each individual landowner.
Of course, the above statement is only partially true. Such advocates believe that their desires are paramount, not yours. If they wish to sell their land to a developer for big bucks, you shouldn't get to have a say in whether or not this will benefit the community, at large. If you decide to throw your weekly garbage onto your front lawn or burn tires in your back yard, all of sudden, these same devout property rights activists want the community and their police force to weigh in.
Beyond this, how does a person improve Mother Earth in the first place? It is perfect already. How can any entity enhance the internal nature of something else? Most of us humans have enough trouble dealing with our own internal natures, so why do we find it necessary to meddle with the internal nature of other things?
If you look at our track record, it doesn't speak highly of our efforts. What we like to call improving the land usually involves some degree of degradation and/or extraction. We take from the earth without giving back. We molest it with greed in our hearts. We attempt to change it without regard for the interconnection of other beings in the ecosystem.
The Lakota, as well as a vast majority of other native tribes, revered the earth and realized that we are her guests. They didn't lay claim to her, but treated her like a respected innkeeper. When they made use of her fruits, they paid homage to her largess. And they intuitively understood the connection of all things.
It turns out that the Lakota weren't savages at all -- we are.
To Lakota sensibilities this made no sense! No one could "own" what was provided for all. Tribes could control certain portions of territory, but this is not the same thing as exclusive ownership. If we look at the history of modern humankind, most conflicts are fought for ownership of land and sea.
The overall concept of private property is troublesome, to say the least. In this country, property rights advocates argue that each individual should have the right to do whatever he or she damn well wants to do with THEIR property. It doesn't matter what neighbors or the overall community desires; the freedom falls to each individual landowner.
Of course, the above statement is only partially true. Such advocates believe that their desires are paramount, not yours. If they wish to sell their land to a developer for big bucks, you shouldn't get to have a say in whether or not this will benefit the community, at large. If you decide to throw your weekly garbage onto your front lawn or burn tires in your back yard, all of sudden, these same devout property rights activists want the community and their police force to weigh in.
Beyond this, how does a person improve Mother Earth in the first place? It is perfect already. How can any entity enhance the internal nature of something else? Most of us humans have enough trouble dealing with our own internal natures, so why do we find it necessary to meddle with the internal nature of other things?
If you look at our track record, it doesn't speak highly of our efforts. What we like to call improving the land usually involves some degree of degradation and/or extraction. We take from the earth without giving back. We molest it with greed in our hearts. We attempt to change it without regard for the interconnection of other beings in the ecosystem.
The Lakota, as well as a vast majority of other native tribes, revered the earth and realized that we are her guests. They didn't lay claim to her, but treated her like a respected innkeeper. When they made use of her fruits, they paid homage to her largess. And they intuitively understood the connection of all things.
It turns out that the Lakota weren't savages at all -- we are.
this is very true, and it's part of the reason why people don't treat the earth with respect, and don't treat animals and plants with respect, either. it's all about "ownership". "custodians" is a better term to describe what we do. i agree with the concept of private property as long as there is also public property, because in this culture there are very, very few communal societies, most are individualist. however we need to stop thinking in terms of "this is mine" or "this is ours," instead thinking in terms of "this land belongs to itself and i am the caretaker."
ReplyDelete